Sex and the solitary person
I’ve been reading what some others in the Christian blogosphere have been saying about this subject and find it troubling. What's more, there doesn’t seem to be a clear, comprehensive popular guideline or apologetic on the issue, at least for non-Catholics. I would like, therefore, to offer a perspective that does not originate with the story of Onan, yet is Biblically-based. My intent is not to condemn nor vindicate, but to uphold a view that solitary sex (autoerotism) promotes a narcissistic view of sex and robs a person of what sex can and ought to be both for the self and for whomever the person may enter marital covenant with.
Fundamental to the morality of autoerotism are two issues: ownership of the body, and the purpose of sex. First, we must establish that, since one’s body and accompanying personhood have been created by God for God, then they belong to God. They are not one’s own. The body is a living temple to be used in service to Him – Romans 12:1-2 and I Corinthians 6:12-20.* And although sexuality is clearly God-given, it can be -- and is -- perverted in many ways, some of them subtle, as can the view and use of other functions of the body. Also, an awareness of one’s God-given sexuality is to be distinguished from exploration of and indulgence of it, especially in the wrong context. Such context would be anything outside of the sexual union of a man and wife.
It seems a popular rationale for exoneration of autoerotism merely addresses guilt. There’s a difference between guilt and condemnation, however. Human beings, whether accepting of redemption in Christ or not, are still and will always be guilty of many things. The one who has not accepted redemption stands condemned for this, while the redeemed individual, though guilty, does not. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” – Romans 8:1. This does not mean that we need not refrain from wrongdoing (Romans 6:1-2), but restraint should not be for the purpose of avoiding guilt. It should be based on trust and a desire to please our Maker and Sustainer and to do what is right.
It also is not possible to make something that belongs in darkness lighter merely by bringing it into the light. A dark thing remains dark even in the light – the Light reveals its darkness. Whether one is ashamed or open, secretive or flaunting, has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.
In the realm of cultural morality, to say that something dark is light is to say that morality is relative. When sexuality is relativized (when a merely personal view is taken, or one that confuses spirituality with intense feeling, both physical and emotional), values such as pleasure, gratification, and expression become higher purposes of sex than marital relationship and family-building. In our brave new world of the sexual free-for-all, emphasis is on the present, temporary situation in which adults and children may engage in sexual behavior unrestricted by anything except an absence of mutual consent. There is precious little attention paid to the importance of maturity or the value of continuity and long-term relationship (which usually involves the creating and long-term nurturing of a family, though obviously it will not in the case of infertility).
I have read James Dobson’s thoughts on the subject and find them surprising and, frankly, disappointing . It is odd that someone so hardline on other issues of sexual morality can simply brush this one aside. His rationale essentially falls under the category outlined above, and I will address some of his arguments below (they are included generally in the list).
Looking at statements that justify sex by oneself:
1) The Bible doesn’t address the subject specifically; therefore, one cannot claim that it is sin.
response: The Bible doesn’t address it specifically, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that autoerotism is not sin. The Bible expresses the importance and exclusivity of the marital sexual union and of the heritage and blessing that children are, which sheds light on the purpose of sex. Sin is that which separates one from God. Can it truthfully be said that autoerotism brings one closer to God, or, at the very least, does not separate one from God, if it indeed represents a use of sex for which it was not designed?
2) Just because I’m single doesn’t mean I have no sexuality.
Of course not. But being a sexual being and having related thoughts is different from using that sexuality for oneself by exploring, developing, or otherwise using it on one’s own. Sexuality is meant to be shared. To whom is one making love when one manipulates oneself?
The married person’s body belongs to his/her spouse – I Corinthians 7:4. A person’s sexuality is not for him/herself, it’s for the spouse, and vice-versa. This is not to say that one’s own sexual satisfaction is not important, but such concern belongs to the spouse. It’s also not to say that a person may have no sexual life of mind outside of sex with his/her spouse; mental awareness is a major part of one’s sexuality. Yet it needn’t proceed into fantasy, nor serve/indulge the self.
3) Married people can have sex whenever they want.
Obviously not written by a married person ;-)
4) A married person has no business discussing autoeroticism and singleness.
Unless a person has gotten married before puberty, he/she certainly has had experience of being single in his/her sexuality.
5) Since most people, especially teenagers, are going to do it no matter what, there’s not much point in telling them not to, or in telling them there’s anything wrong with it.
Most people are going to act deceitfully at one time or another also. Should we just wink, shrug our shoulders, and say, “oh well”? Why not explain to young people, or any people, the kinds of things I am discussing in this post while at the same time respecting their personal privacy?
6) Autoerotism needn’t involve fantasy; it can just be a harmless physiological release.
Let’s assume that the mere physiological release part is true. I am still not convinced that the mind and emotions are not involved (outside of nocturnal emission, which a person is not conscious of). Humans are not schizo-experiential unless there is some problem; for the normal person, the mind, body, and emotions are (or ought to be) quite interconnected. Even if no fantasy is involved, there’s still a mental occupation with sensation and the source of the sensation – the self. There is a good feeling in more than one area of one’s being. To say that autoeroticism can merely be an insignificant, mindless physiological release is to ignore or deny certain aspects. What good would that kind of sexuality do a marriage? And if such release truly is insignificant and mindless, then it can’t be necessary, and should be easy to refrain from.
Mental and emotional release most likely occur along with the physiological release, though one or more of these may be more prominent at certain times than at others. It remains clear that sexual release is far too powerful a physiological, mental, and/or emotional phenomenon to be treated lightly. If it weren’t so intense, it surely wouldn't be so popular. The intensity matches the purpose of sex, which is to cement a married couple together and produce children.
Regarding the elements of the performance of a sexual act, it’s what these elements are connected to that’s most important. We are sensory beings, and sex is obviously very sensual. If one is unleashing one’s sexuality with and within oneself, there is sensual connection occurring with one’s thoughts, one’s environment, and one’s self. This is the problem, because sex is meant to be a duet, not a solo. The glories of sex are meant to be given and received through the spouse with the spouse. Sex is meant to be a language “spoken” between a man and women within the covenant of marriage.
Like anything else received from God, the true benefit and pleasure is realized when the thing is offered up first. The pleasure is the collateral and the reward. But it can’t be received unless the investment is made first.
7) Sexual release is a real need. If a person doesn’t have a spouse, then they must take care of their own needs, especially to avoid sinning with another person or indulging in p0rn.
How does one define a need and distinguish it from a want? Sometimes wants are needs, but this does not grant license for a person to satisfy a need inappropriately. If sex is for a spouse, then obviously one does not need to bestow it upon oneself.
Sexuality isn’t like hunger, despite the analogy. If one denies hunger long enough, one will die. Contrary to old-wives tales, though, no one has ever died or even become ill, from a purely physiological standpoint, by denying or delaying the gratification of his/her sexual urges. Like an itch, it might drive a person nuts for awhile, but eventually the itch fades. It takes great strength of character to withstand such a torment but it can be done, and practice helps. No one is hurt by delaying gratification of a want, and sexual dormancy is perfectly OK in the appropriate situation. Does every person need to gratify his/her sexuality? No. Does every married person need to express his/her sexuality in conjunction with his/her spouse? Yes.
8) Persons can often best learn about how their bodies “work” by figuring it out on their own.
Why on earth not have a spouse along on the journey?
9) A person whose spouse will not do for them “what they want” must find another outlet.
Scripture does not tell us to delight in, ahem, ourselves. Lovers (spouses) are to delight in one another! Note to whom the attention is directed, and note the reciprocity. (I am not in any way condoning or promoting sexual slavery, even in marriage.) In Proverbs 5:15 it is written, “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.” Note that the cistern and the well are one’s spouse, not one’s own body, mind, or emotions. The passage is referring to adultery, yet the person to whom it is addressed is directed away from the “other woman” (or man) and back to the spouse, not to the self, or to the spouse and/or the self.
10) What one does by oneself sexually need have no effect on one’s spouse or future spouse; indeed, it may help him or her, and help the relationship.
This sounds a bit like the argument that sleeping with others before (or besides) one’s spouse makes one better in bed. Eeesh. Is the goal to be a better lover via experience, knowledge, and technique, or via cultivation of a specific relationship with the person to whom one has given all aspects of one’s life (in marriage)? If sex is one of the greatest gifts that can be given to another person, why squander it on some other person or even on oneself? The latter is the definition of narcissism; it’s akin to being planted in front of a mirror. Regarding the former, taking the sexuality of another into oneself means that it will remain there, in part, forever. It becomes a kind of impurity in one’s covenant sexual relationship that may be blended in or covered over but never completely removed. Likewise, there will always be a part of oneself in the other person/people.
Sexuality is a valuable treasure, a great gift. As Christians, we give our very best gifts – our figurative gold, frankincense, and myrrh – to God, and in so doing, give our sexual treasures to our spouse. We do not “spread the wealth” around; to do so is to cheapen its worth and dilute its significance as well as to make a mockery of the gift itself and the covenant of marriage. Adultery isn’t referred to as “cheating” for no reason; adultery cheats a spouse of what ought to be theirs and theirs alone. Autoerotism also cheats one’s spouse (current or future) out of a portion of one’s sexuality.
11) Autoerotism does not have any bearing on one’s relationship to God.
If God is Lord of everything, then this cannot be true. If He is Lord of everything, then that means everything. Especially something as important to a person as sexuality -- a part of his or her being that was created and bestowed by God in the first place. Especially if it's so important that he or she is driven to act on it in some way. This and every other aspect of a person’s being are resources, and require proper stewardship as such. The heart, mind, and body must be guarded against anything that would steal, corrupt, or destroy, in whatever way.
*I am aware that the passage in I Corinthians 6 refers to sex with a prostitute, but I believe that the principles apply to autoerotism as well, as I will explain.
Note: Comments are welcome, but I ask that they be civil and on-topic.
Fundamental to the morality of autoerotism are two issues: ownership of the body, and the purpose of sex. First, we must establish that, since one’s body and accompanying personhood have been created by God for God, then they belong to God. They are not one’s own. The body is a living temple to be used in service to Him – Romans 12:1-2 and I Corinthians 6:12-20.* And although sexuality is clearly God-given, it can be -- and is -- perverted in many ways, some of them subtle, as can the view and use of other functions of the body. Also, an awareness of one’s God-given sexuality is to be distinguished from exploration of and indulgence of it, especially in the wrong context. Such context would be anything outside of the sexual union of a man and wife.
It seems a popular rationale for exoneration of autoerotism merely addresses guilt. There’s a difference between guilt and condemnation, however. Human beings, whether accepting of redemption in Christ or not, are still and will always be guilty of many things. The one who has not accepted redemption stands condemned for this, while the redeemed individual, though guilty, does not. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” – Romans 8:1. This does not mean that we need not refrain from wrongdoing (Romans 6:1-2), but restraint should not be for the purpose of avoiding guilt. It should be based on trust and a desire to please our Maker and Sustainer and to do what is right.
It also is not possible to make something that belongs in darkness lighter merely by bringing it into the light. A dark thing remains dark even in the light – the Light reveals its darkness. Whether one is ashamed or open, secretive or flaunting, has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.
In the realm of cultural morality, to say that something dark is light is to say that morality is relative. When sexuality is relativized (when a merely personal view is taken, or one that confuses spirituality with intense feeling, both physical and emotional), values such as pleasure, gratification, and expression become higher purposes of sex than marital relationship and family-building. In our brave new world of the sexual free-for-all, emphasis is on the present, temporary situation in which adults and children may engage in sexual behavior unrestricted by anything except an absence of mutual consent. There is precious little attention paid to the importance of maturity or the value of continuity and long-term relationship (which usually involves the creating and long-term nurturing of a family, though obviously it will not in the case of infertility).
I have read James Dobson’s thoughts on the subject and find them surprising and, frankly, disappointing . It is odd that someone so hardline on other issues of sexual morality can simply brush this one aside. His rationale essentially falls under the category outlined above, and I will address some of his arguments below (they are included generally in the list).
Looking at statements that justify sex by oneself:
1) The Bible doesn’t address the subject specifically; therefore, one cannot claim that it is sin.
response: The Bible doesn’t address it specifically, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that autoerotism is not sin. The Bible expresses the importance and exclusivity of the marital sexual union and of the heritage and blessing that children are, which sheds light on the purpose of sex. Sin is that which separates one from God. Can it truthfully be said that autoerotism brings one closer to God, or, at the very least, does not separate one from God, if it indeed represents a use of sex for which it was not designed?
2) Just because I’m single doesn’t mean I have no sexuality.
Of course not. But being a sexual being and having related thoughts is different from using that sexuality for oneself by exploring, developing, or otherwise using it on one’s own. Sexuality is meant to be shared. To whom is one making love when one manipulates oneself?
The married person’s body belongs to his/her spouse – I Corinthians 7:4. A person’s sexuality is not for him/herself, it’s for the spouse, and vice-versa. This is not to say that one’s own sexual satisfaction is not important, but such concern belongs to the spouse. It’s also not to say that a person may have no sexual life of mind outside of sex with his/her spouse; mental awareness is a major part of one’s sexuality. Yet it needn’t proceed into fantasy, nor serve/indulge the self.
3) Married people can have sex whenever they want.
Obviously not written by a married person ;-)
4) A married person has no business discussing autoeroticism and singleness.
Unless a person has gotten married before puberty, he/she certainly has had experience of being single in his/her sexuality.
5) Since most people, especially teenagers, are going to do it no matter what, there’s not much point in telling them not to, or in telling them there’s anything wrong with it.
Most people are going to act deceitfully at one time or another also. Should we just wink, shrug our shoulders, and say, “oh well”? Why not explain to young people, or any people, the kinds of things I am discussing in this post while at the same time respecting their personal privacy?
6) Autoerotism needn’t involve fantasy; it can just be a harmless physiological release.
Let’s assume that the mere physiological release part is true. I am still not convinced that the mind and emotions are not involved (outside of nocturnal emission, which a person is not conscious of). Humans are not schizo-experiential unless there is some problem; for the normal person, the mind, body, and emotions are (or ought to be) quite interconnected. Even if no fantasy is involved, there’s still a mental occupation with sensation and the source of the sensation – the self. There is a good feeling in more than one area of one’s being. To say that autoeroticism can merely be an insignificant, mindless physiological release is to ignore or deny certain aspects. What good would that kind of sexuality do a marriage? And if such release truly is insignificant and mindless, then it can’t be necessary, and should be easy to refrain from.
Mental and emotional release most likely occur along with the physiological release, though one or more of these may be more prominent at certain times than at others. It remains clear that sexual release is far too powerful a physiological, mental, and/or emotional phenomenon to be treated lightly. If it weren’t so intense, it surely wouldn't be so popular. The intensity matches the purpose of sex, which is to cement a married couple together and produce children.
Regarding the elements of the performance of a sexual act, it’s what these elements are connected to that’s most important. We are sensory beings, and sex is obviously very sensual. If one is unleashing one’s sexuality with and within oneself, there is sensual connection occurring with one’s thoughts, one’s environment, and one’s self. This is the problem, because sex is meant to be a duet, not a solo. The glories of sex are meant to be given and received through the spouse with the spouse. Sex is meant to be a language “spoken” between a man and women within the covenant of marriage.
Like anything else received from God, the true benefit and pleasure is realized when the thing is offered up first. The pleasure is the collateral and the reward. But it can’t be received unless the investment is made first.
7) Sexual release is a real need. If a person doesn’t have a spouse, then they must take care of their own needs, especially to avoid sinning with another person or indulging in p0rn.
How does one define a need and distinguish it from a want? Sometimes wants are needs, but this does not grant license for a person to satisfy a need inappropriately. If sex is for a spouse, then obviously one does not need to bestow it upon oneself.
Sexuality isn’t like hunger, despite the analogy. If one denies hunger long enough, one will die. Contrary to old-wives tales, though, no one has ever died or even become ill, from a purely physiological standpoint, by denying or delaying the gratification of his/her sexual urges. Like an itch, it might drive a person nuts for awhile, but eventually the itch fades. It takes great strength of character to withstand such a torment but it can be done, and practice helps. No one is hurt by delaying gratification of a want, and sexual dormancy is perfectly OK in the appropriate situation. Does every person need to gratify his/her sexuality? No. Does every married person need to express his/her sexuality in conjunction with his/her spouse? Yes.
8) Persons can often best learn about how their bodies “work” by figuring it out on their own.
Why on earth not have a spouse along on the journey?
9) A person whose spouse will not do for them “what they want” must find another outlet.
Scripture does not tell us to delight in, ahem, ourselves. Lovers (spouses) are to delight in one another! Note to whom the attention is directed, and note the reciprocity. (I am not in any way condoning or promoting sexual slavery, even in marriage.) In Proverbs 5:15 it is written, “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.” Note that the cistern and the well are one’s spouse, not one’s own body, mind, or emotions. The passage is referring to adultery, yet the person to whom it is addressed is directed away from the “other woman” (or man) and back to the spouse, not to the self, or to the spouse and/or the self.
10) What one does by oneself sexually need have no effect on one’s spouse or future spouse; indeed, it may help him or her, and help the relationship.
This sounds a bit like the argument that sleeping with others before (or besides) one’s spouse makes one better in bed. Eeesh. Is the goal to be a better lover via experience, knowledge, and technique, or via cultivation of a specific relationship with the person to whom one has given all aspects of one’s life (in marriage)? If sex is one of the greatest gifts that can be given to another person, why squander it on some other person or even on oneself? The latter is the definition of narcissism; it’s akin to being planted in front of a mirror. Regarding the former, taking the sexuality of another into oneself means that it will remain there, in part, forever. It becomes a kind of impurity in one’s covenant sexual relationship that may be blended in or covered over but never completely removed. Likewise, there will always be a part of oneself in the other person/people.
Sexuality is a valuable treasure, a great gift. As Christians, we give our very best gifts – our figurative gold, frankincense, and myrrh – to God, and in so doing, give our sexual treasures to our spouse. We do not “spread the wealth” around; to do so is to cheapen its worth and dilute its significance as well as to make a mockery of the gift itself and the covenant of marriage. Adultery isn’t referred to as “cheating” for no reason; adultery cheats a spouse of what ought to be theirs and theirs alone. Autoerotism also cheats one’s spouse (current or future) out of a portion of one’s sexuality.
11) Autoerotism does not have any bearing on one’s relationship to God.
If God is Lord of everything, then this cannot be true. If He is Lord of everything, then that means everything. Especially something as important to a person as sexuality -- a part of his or her being that was created and bestowed by God in the first place. Especially if it's so important that he or she is driven to act on it in some way. This and every other aspect of a person’s being are resources, and require proper stewardship as such. The heart, mind, and body must be guarded against anything that would steal, corrupt, or destroy, in whatever way.
*I am aware that the passage in I Corinthians 6 refers to sex with a prostitute, but I believe that the principles apply to autoerotism as well, as I will explain.
Note: Comments are welcome, but I ask that they be civil and on-topic.
posted by Bonnie at
1:28 PM
17 Comments:
Bonnie, you are brave in addressing this subject. In my experience, what you do before marriage certainly effects how you handle it after marriage. Bottom line is that it is lust. Nothing changes instantly after marriage and suddenly you don't look at it this way anymore. You carry all your issues with you - through the marriage vows and down the road into the marriage relationship.
By
Anita, at 4:03 PM
I think you are writing this as a woman, and therefore one whose experience is not congruent with the masculine reality. The reality is that ejaculation will happen whether the man likes it or not. It can happen in his sleep or it can happen when he is awake. If he is asleep, let's just say that the results can both be disturbing and unsavoury. However, if he is awake, he can at least control his thoughts. In this sense, masturbation -- or "autoeroticism" as you call it -- is less about sexual pleasure, and more about bodily maintenance.
By
Christopher Trottier, at 5:02 PM
This was one of the best essays on this subject I have ever read. I have pasted into my documents for future use. Thanks for taking the time to think through this subject and being brave enough to post it.
As for Christopher Trottier, I bet he is single and 20.
By
Scott Hill, at 6:40 PM
Bonnie, thanks for dealing with this subject.
I am active in a singles group of about eighty men and women whom are thirty to fortysomething years old.
I forwarded a link to your post to my pastor. I doubt he would deal with this subject in our mixed singles group from the pulpit, but I suspect a link to your post may make its way into a few emails.
By
Away From The Brink, at 7:54 AM
Excellent post. You also might understand why I dislike Mr. Dobson. Compromise on God's standards is never appropriate and impurity is sin. I believe this subject is more about accepting or rejecting impurity and immorality than Mr. Dobson thinks.
By
pregador27, at 10:48 AM
Very interesting post. I was going to leave a comment, but it turned into a long post, so I will waste my own space instead of yours! Thanks for the courage to write this and bring it up. I pray that readers will focus on gaining wisdom and not on attacking each other, understanding that many deep personal experiences and emotions run behind this issue.
By
texashimalaya, at 9:31 PM
I don't think I've ever read anything on this subject written by a woman before. Very thought-provoking.
By
Pig wot flies, at 3:46 AM
Just curious-
Were the statements you rebutted statements by James Dobson himself? Is he married?
If those are his comments, I find them entirely distasteful. Particularly, his ideas of masturbation in marriage are quite shocking. I wonder if he has a wife and if she knows he feels this way?
I'm impressed that so many people lately have been addressing this topic. With the growing decrease of taboo topics these days, it's good to see Christians speaking out in an honest yet Biblical way about such things. Thanks for being brave enough to post about it. I've got thoughts, too, but perhaps am not brave enough yet to share them. At any rate, I will say I disagree with the men who think women can't deal with this issue, too. As if women aren't tempted with the same things as men or don't have the same desires and sexuality.
Sorry for the long comment. Came here from Intellectuelle.
By
Lori, at 10:19 AM
By highlighting two different Christian interpretations of masturbation (yours and James Dobson’s), you have perhaps demonstrated that God is infinitely malleable, much like autoeroticism itself.
I appreciate your taking a stab at defining a Christian view of masturbation. It is not a topic comes easily to a quickie comment like this. However, I wanted to say that I don't think it is a straightened arrow, but rather it is slippery slope. Autoeroticism can't be boxed in by “right and wrong.”
If the Lord God is everything, then giving yourself to him does not exclude giving up your humanity to him. By this I mean autoeroticism is human. The Peter I find in the Bible comes on his own to the understanding that morality is not determined by God, but by our interpretation of morality as reflected by us to God.
Or, maybe I'm wrong, or just outnumbered, but I don't think the snake in Genesis is the same as the one in your trousers.
By
David Mulholland, at 9:53 PM
http://www.macwebguru.com/clues/SpecialCharsNeedEncoded.jpg
Your 'smart quotes' are not coming through on non-MS browsers.
By
Doogman, at 10:03 PM
this is a whole lot of rhetoric to say "the bible says so."
so what if you and your wife masturbate in bed together? or what if your spouse tells you to masturbate?
it seems like the bible leaves some wiggle room for the toucholatin'.
By
blue lang, at 11:57 PM
Bonnie, thanks for being so brave and tackling this subject. You are 100% right on.
By
razorbackmama, at 2:02 AM
"homeschooling mom of 3"
that says it all right there.
By
Mattb79, at 11:01 AM
Wow... I had no idea anyone really thought like this. I felt sad for you the whole time I was reading.
I bet you also masturbate... Often!
By
RBM, at 1:52 PM
Folks, geeze - disagree, but do it with the same intent as the author - to discover the truth.
You may come to a different conclusion (I have), but be respectful.
By
Anonymous, at 2:41 PM
Chris, thanks for taking the time to comment. You say,
I can't help but notice that the meat of your argument doesn't quote the Bible at all.
You must have overlooked my mention of Romans 12:1-2, I Corinthians 6:12-20, I Cor. 7:4, and Proverbs 5:15.
As an example, at one point you say "The intensity matches the purpose of sex, which is to cement a married couple together and produce children." Where the heck did that come from?
Well, I'd say it’s pretty much self-evident, but here are some Scriptures that speak to sex, marriage, and children, in addition to those in the post:
Genesis 1:27-28
Genesis 2:18-24
Matthew 19:5-6
Hebrews 13:4
Proverbs 5:15-23
I Corinthians 7:1-7
Ephesians 5:25-33
Haven't you ever read the Song of Songs? What about the value of the feelings of sex in themselves, espoused in that long poem?
Song of Songs is a love poem between two lovers (who are getting married). I do not see anything in there that could be construed as being a song to sex in and of itself. There certainly is no mention of masturbation.
It is true that there is no specific mention of masturbation in the entire Bible. But I don’t think that means that there is nothing at all in the Bible that can inform a view on it. There are many, many moral and ethical issues that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean they are outside the realm of morality itself.
The value of the feelings of sex is to cement a married couple together and produce children. Is this not self-evident?
The view that masturbation detracts from our experience with God has been around in modern culture since the 1800s, and has been in Christianity since deep in the Dark Ages, if not prior to that.
No doubt the view has been around for a very long time. And for what reason? To spoil everyone’s fun, or to increase it in its proper context?
And the fact is, it's been wrong all that time.
If that is so, please supply your proof.
Our bodies are God's work. They were made by God. All of their functions are designed by the Divinity Himself.
Agreed.
Satan doesn't tempt us by using our body;
Lying involves use of the body – the mind (brain) and the mouth. Stealing involves use of major body parts.
Satan tempts us by tempting us--by making wrong intellectual choices like lying and stealing appear okay.
Perhaps like making masturbation appear OK.
God made our bodies so that they would feel good during sex, so that they would feel good when we masturbated.
Yes, God made sex of any kind to feel good. I’m sure that a rapist feels good when he’s raping. I’m sure an adulterer feels good when he/she is committing adultery. Does that make it right?
Masturbation is a celebration of God's craftsmanship, not a denial thereof.
I don’t believe that masturbation is a denial of God’s craftsmanship.
I note, Chris, that the only Scripture you use to support your position is Song of Solomon, and it doesn’t support your position.
By
Bonnie, at 6:15 PM
Masturbation isn't just a human 'temptation'. Anyone raised on a farm or visiting the zoo knows mammals like the stimulation and release, and I don't really think Satan is preoccupied with tempting the souls of dogs, cows and horses. Male biology responds to perceived opportunity and touch.
The human male is going to scan for possible mates regardless if you call it lust or temptation or a natural drive. There is no guilt in this, it's a fact of human biology. A Christian man usually chooses to not act on the hundreds of thoughts, impulses, and urges he may have during a day or night, but I don't think you fully appreciate what goes into that.
An adult male is going to release sperm every 2 or 3 days regardless of how it happens, and older teens may be more frequently experiencing emissions. This is not something good to repress. I do hope if you have boys, you will become more tolerant and accepting as they mature.
Having a safe release in which one practices caring touch isn't going to remove any man from God's favor. As a male, I think it presumptuous for a female to presume to know so much about male sexuality as to define what is 'sin' and what is not. I hope, that as a dutiful wife, you are conferring with your husband on your writings.
You aren't giving a full picture of Biblical sex. Polygamy was frequently practiced by males in Biblical eras, and arranged marriages of young girls at an early age was 'normal'. Are we going to bring these practices back?
Also, the patriarchs had an interesting practice of taking an oath by the supplicant reaching in the man's cloak and touching his "thigh" to have him promise something of importance under an oath that couldn't be broken. "Thigh" is a translator's euphemism for the male penis, and it is likely related to being circumsized. Jacob wrestled an angel until his "thigh" was touched. My point is male sexuality is not a faucet that can be sealed off for days, weeks, months or years.
By
Anonymous, at 10:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home